It must be said - Hawk Harrelson has to go

[Marty34]

Don't sabrmetrics guys and non-sabremtrics guys agree on the value of players 99.99% of the time?

[IlliniKrush]

This is ironic considering when I told you it was likely Rios missed a sign or attempted to steal on his own the other day, and pointed out some evidence, you quickly dismissed it and referred to my assumptions as stupid. Then it comes out Rios went on his own. Seems you are the one who thinks he has all the answers.

 

You don't necessarily have to play the game in the major leagues to be successful. That was proven. But I do think you have to be around it for a while. And experience is knowledge. A person working JP Morgan today who happened to be a saber-wizard in his spare time, would probably not be very successful if he were hired as a GM tomorrow.

 

Hawk knows a heck of a lot more about intricacies of hitting and pitching than most guys here will ever know. He doesn't know what WAR is, but the funny thing is, most of the people who throw WAR around have zero idea how it's even calculated. Yet they are "knowlegable", and Hawk is an "embarrassment"

You had no evidence to prove Rios went on his own or missed a sign. Until there's evidence to the contrary, it's assumed the manager made that move, because, well, that's what mangers do. If something happens on a field and 95% of the time the manger made it happen, and we have a situation in which something happened, what's more likely? 95>5?

 

If Hawk knows so much about baseball, he should spend time talking about it on the air. All he does is talk about the good old days and yell catch-phrases. Try to teach people about the game. He doesn't, everything to him is just a mental mindset. TWTW. Give me a break. Yes, that wins games over all else.

 

Theo Epstein didn't exactly have a background in baseball before he got into it. Who would you rather have running a team, a smart guy like him, or Hawk?

 

Hawk may know intricacies but again, he ignores advanced metrics which help you understand the game better. He's only about the scouting angle - if that. He didn't even make that argument yesterday, he just talked about desire. Numbers don't lie. Saying Viciedo has the liveliest bat since Carlos Delgado (LOL) doesn't tell you how good he'll be or how good he is now. A deeper look into numbers will. But maybe he has a lot of TWTW, I don't know how to measure that.

 

You don't have to know exactly how WAR is calculated as long as you know what it means and what it represents. That goes for any stat. I bet a lot of people couldn't tell me how slugging % is calculated, but they probably can look at some numbers of hitters and tell if they are below average, average, great, etc.

[witesoxfan]

Stats are great, but like he said (and Harold had his back on this) even with the information being there for the manager there is still an instinct and a gut feeling for THAT moment. I think sabermetrics have thier place in the game without doubt, but I don't think that you can use sabermetrics for every situation of every game.

 

My gut instinct told me to f*** the s*** ouf a girl who I just met without a condom.

 

The activities are different, but the concept is the same. Going with your gut occasionally gets you in trouble and is not always right.

[iamshack]

Tell that to the residents of Torotno?

Where is this mythical place you speak of?

[Dick Allen]

Don't sabrmetrics guys and non-sabremtrics guys agree on the value of players 99.99% of the time?

This is what I think. How many times does it occur the non saber guys think a guy is great and the saber guys say he sucks and vice versa?

[StrangeSox]

advanced stats are just another tool to understand the game. that's what makes the hatred of them so weird.

[iamshack]

My gut instinct told me to f*** the s*** ouf a girl who I just met without a condom.

 

The activities are different, but the concept is the same. Going with your gut occasionally gets you in trouble and is not always right.

Obviously the thought it over the course of time, going with the data will produce better results than going with your instinct. However, both will occasionally get you in trouble and neither are always right.

[IlliniKrush]

Stats are great, but like he said (and Harold had his back on this) even with the information being there for the manager there is still an instinct and a gut feeling for THAT moment. I think sabermetrics have thier place in the game without doubt, but I don't think that you can use sabermetrics for every situation of every game.

Too many managers get away with that quote after the game. "Went on a gut feel." WTF does that even mean? Some sort of logic told you to do X instead of Y, explain that. Was it something you saw that week, that game, etc? Did the numbers tell you it was probably 50/50 anyway, so you used other evidence to help?

[iamshack]

advanced stats are just another tool to understand the game. that's what makes the hatred of them so weird.

I don't think that is what it is at all...

 

A lot of it revolves around the way the two sides of the spectrum treated one another when the data guys were first coming to prominence. They were referred to as eggheads or computer nerds by the scouts and lifetime baseball men, and they referred to the scouts and baseball men as fools and ignoramuses...

[StrangeSox]

Too many managers get away with that quote after the game. "Went on a gut feel." WTF does that even mean? Some sort of logic told you to do X instead of Y, explain that. Was it something you saw that week, that game, etc? Did the numbers tell you it was probably 50/50 anyway, so you used other evidence to help?

If you were previously aware of the numbers, I don't think there's anyway they wouldn't influence your "gut."

[caulfield12]

This is what I think. How many times does it occur the non saber guys think a guy is great and the saber guys say he sucks and vice versa?

 

 

SABR guys hate Viciedo and Ramirez. Harrelson will tell you the ball just jumps or explodes off his bat....that's he got power to all fields, bat speed, blah blah blah. (What he won't explain is why that bat speed ends up only turning around fastballs or pitches between 75-90 MPH normally).

 

Heck, most guys who don't walk very much aren't in favor with that crowd.

 

They've programmed themselves to look more at OPS, RC/RC27, OBP or WAR.

 

It can be overdone, to the point where anyone striking out less than 6 hitters per 9 IP in the minor leagues isn't given a second thought...for example.

 

 

[Dick Allen]

You had no evidence to prove Rios went on his own or missed a sign. Until there's evidence to the contrary, it's assumed the manager made that move, because, well, that's what mangers do. If something happens on a field and 95% of the time the manger made it happen, and we have a situation in which something happened, what's more likely? 95>5?

 

If Hawk knows so much about baseball, he should spend time talking about it on the air. All he does is talk about the good old days and yell catch-phrases. Try to teach people about the game. He doesn't, everything to him is just a mental mindset. TWTW. Give me a break. Yes, that wins games over all else.

 

Theo Epstein didn't exactly have a background in baseball before he got into it. Who would you rather have running a team, a smart guy like him, or Hawk?

 

Hawk may know intricacies but again, he ignores advanced metrics which help you understand the game better. He's only about the scouting angle - if that. He didn't even make that argument yesterday, he just talked about desire. Numbers don't lie. Saying Viciedo has the liveliest bat since Carlos Delgado (LOL) doesn't tell you how good he'll be or how good he is now. A deeper look into numbers will. But maybe he has a lot of TWTW, I don't know how to measure that.

 

You don't have to know exactly how WAR is calculated as long as you know what it means and what it represents. That goes for any stat. I bet a lot of people couldn't tell me how slugging % is calculated, but they probably can look at some numbers of hitters and tell if they are below average, average, great, etc.

The situation in which Rios ran should have been ample proof Ventura didn't send him. I pointed that out and the fact the runner on first, who isn't being looked at at all or held on, didn't move. You said it was stupid.

 

If you don't know how WAR is calculated, how can you conclude it is an accurate measure?

[StrangeSox]

I don't think that is what it is at all...

 

A lot of it revolves around the way the two sides of the spectrum treated one another when the data guys were first coming to prominence. They were referred to as eggheads or computer nerds by the scouts and lifetime baseball men, and they referred to the scouts and baseball men as fools and ignoramuses...

 

don't forget the always-hilarious "living in your mom's basement!!!" retort

[StrangeSox]

The situation in which Rios ran should have been ample proof Ventura didn't send him. I pointed that out and the fact the runner on first, who isn't being looked at at all or held on, didn't move. You said it was stupid.

 

If you don't know how WAR is calculated, how can you conclude it is an accurate measure?

 

I don't know how GDP is calculated but I can still trust it as a reliable metric.

[Dick Allen]

SABR guys hate Viciedo and Ramirez. Harrelson will tell you the ball just jumps or explodes off his bat....that's he got power to all fields, bat speed, blah blah blah. (What he won't explain is why that bat speed ends up only turning around fastballs or pitches between 75-90 MPH normally).

 

Heck, most guys who don't walk very much aren't in favor with that crowd.

 

They've programmed themselves to look more at OPS, RC/RC27, OBP or WAR.

 

It can be overdone, to the point where anyone striking out less than 6 hitters per 9 IP in the minor leagues isn't given a second thought...for example.

The one thing I will never understand saber-ly if that is even a term, is how offensively, strikeouts mean absolutely nothing, but for pitchers, they mean a heck of a lot.

[StrangeSox]

This is what I think. How many times does it occur the non saber guys think a guy is great and the saber guys say he sucks and vice versa?

There's also been a few decades of exposure to advanced metrics now, so it's expected that you'd see traditional scouting evaluations and saber-type evaluations converge--they're both influenced by each other and the results on the field.

[StrangeSox]

The one thing I will never understand saber-ly if that is even a term, is how offensively, strikeouts mean absolutely nothing, but for pitchers, they mean a heck of a lot.

It's not that black-and-white

 

edit: but that's a good question that hopefully someone can answer

Edited April 26, 2013 by StrangeSox

[caulfield12]

Obviously the thought it over the course of time, going with the data will produce better results than going with your instinct. However, both will occasionally get you in trouble and neither are always right.

 

 

Another example is all the quantitative driven trading programs in the stock market.

 

They're supposed to protect the market from great falls and upswings.

 

They do the exact opposite.

 

Computers can't "read" human psychology or panic. It's the reason that $200 billion was erased momentarily in a matter of 6-7 minutes the other day because of the fake Obama/White House bombing/attack.

 

Statistics will tell you that just holding the S&P stocks at weighted averages will beat "human fund managers" 85% of the time.

 

But the results of those humans beating the market 15% of the time are so extraordinary and unpredictable that no trading program can ever beat the best human minds.

 

Same thing with DePodesta vs. Grady Fuson.

 

The Moneyball philosophy will unearth XXX amount of Nick Swishers, and Grady Fuson will find XXX amount of Courtney Hawkins types and bet that over time, the potential superstars will hit often enough to beat the "solid/above average" Swisher types.

 

Moneyball will provide more consistent results within certain parameters, but "human scouting" will still build World Series winners. Over time, the rest of the league will adjust and catch up to any "market inefficiencies," like high OBP, trading higher priced closers, the value of pre-arbitration players, the relatively cheaper cost of building a solid bullpen compared with a starting rotation (Royals before 2013)....but usually these advantages aren't enough to push a team over the top, they might give a 5-10% advantage in one area....since it has been brought up recently, the Astros' philosophy is that you find 50 areas of advantage over other organizations, that will in turn end up producing the consistent winning team.

 

We'll see.

Edited April 26, 2013 by caulfield12

[Dick Allen]

There's also been a few decades of exposure to advanced metrics now, so it's expected that you'd see traditional scouting evaluations and saber-type evaluations converge--they're both influenced by each other and the results on the field.

The fact is a good performance is a good performance. Hawk is IMO wrong for totally dismissing sabermetrics, but really he and Brian Kenny, who seems to be at the exact opposite end probably would rank players very similarly. In reality, although both sides would probably like to tell you it is, this isn't democrats vs. republicans.

[caulfield12]

The fact is a good performance is a good performance. Hawk is IMO wrong for totally dismissing sabermetrics, but really he and Brian Kenny, who seems to be at the exact opposite end probably would rank players very similarly. In reality, although both sides would probably like to tell you it is, this isn't democrats vs. republicans.

 

 

OPS said that Trout and Cabrera were the two dominant hitters in the AL last year.

 

Just watching all the games and never looking at their stats once, you would have eventually reached the same conclusion.

[StrangeSox]

The fact is a good performance is a good performance. Hawk is IMO wrong for totally dismissing sabermetrics, but really he and Brian Kenny, who seems to be at the exact opposite end probably would rank players very similarly. In reality, although both sides would probably like to tell you it is, this isn't democrats vs. republicans.

 

The difference comes more at the margins, so there's going to be huge overlaps of agreement.

 

What counts as "good performance" is exactly what's in question, though.

[StrangeSox]

OPS said that Trout and Cabrera were the two dominant hitters in the AL last year.

 

Just watching all the games and never looking at their stats once, you would have eventually reached the same conclusion.

Right, and MVP-level players aren't really where advanced stats show the most value. It's the margins and the atypical players that would have otherwise gone unnoticed.

[iamshack]

It's not that black-and-white

 

edit: but that's a good question that hopefully someone can answer

That isn't the case...strikeouts do mean something, but if a hitter does other things very well, such as hit a lot of extra base hits and walk, then the fact that he might k a lot does not diminish him all that much as a hitter.

 

However, for a pitcher, obviously if a hitter is striking out, he cannot put the ball in play, and therefore cannot possibly reach base (save for the wild pitch or passed ball on the third strike). Even that being the case, a pitcher who strikes out a lot of guys is usually going to be throwing a lot of pitches, which can be a negative.

 

It is all about the context and perspective. DA is trying to compare two things as the same when in reality, they are not really viewed from the same perspective at all.

[StrangeSox]

That isn't the case...strikeouts do mean something, but if a hitter does other things very well, such as hit a lot of extra base hits and walk, then the fact that he might k a lot does not diminish him all that much as a hitter.

 

However, for a pitcher, obviously if a hitter is striking out, he cannot put the ball in play, and therefore cannot possibly reach base (save for the wild pitch or passed ball on the third strike). Even that being the case, a pitcher who strikes out a lot of guys is usually going to be throwing a lot of pitches, which can be a negative.

 

It is all about the context and perspective. DA is trying to compare two things as the same when in reality, they are not really viewed from the same perspective at all.

Right, there's a whole bunch of nuance here that seems to disappear when someone goes all ranty about Moneyball Author Billy Beane. Some of it, too, is when people waive away all these fancy-sounding stats not only in favor of "gut" but also in favor of other stats that we know are inferior like pure BA and ERA.

 

Good answer, btw. Better metrics should be able to identify good pitchers who pitch to contact but get outs anyway. Part of getting those outs on balls in play is maximizing your defensive positioning and your pitching strategy for every pitcher-hitter-scenario combination, which is aided by data analysis.

[iamshack]

Right, there's a whole bunch of nuance here that seems to disappear when someone goes all ranty about Moneyball Author Billy Beane. Some of it, too, is when people waive away all these fancy-sounding stats not only in favor of "gut" but also in favor of other stats that we know are inferior like pure BA and ERA.

 

Good answer, btw. Better metrics should be able to identify good pitchers who pitch to contact but get outs anyway. Part of getting those outs on balls in play is maximizing your defensive positioning and your pitching strategy for every pitcher-hitter-scenario combination, which is aided by data analysis.

The tough part is that the data is ultimately analyzing human beings, which, while similar over the wide spectrum of general analysis, are all unique when you really drill down...and that is where the scouting and the "eye test" comes in.